Darwin's Illusion

[cladking]

All your statement demonstrates is that you are capable of stringing those words together in a sentence. At present they are merely hollow boasts. You have yet to demonstrated that you know even a single specific experiment; let alone that even one supports your so-called "theory".

No.

I said ALL EXPERIMENT SUPPORTS MY PARADIGM. It is your job to say one that supports your beliefs but not mine.

To any readers of this several times some of these posters have tried to do this and every time the experiment they cited preferentially supported my theory or could be interpreted to support them both.

This is why nobody wants to try citing experiment; it all agrees with me.

 

[cladking]

“consciousness is life”

This is sufficient for both a working definition and to define the new paradigm. I have supplied a far more complete definition numerous times and written at least a 400 word definition in the past. This is merely a ploy to get longer answers so words and ideas can be taken out of context and attacked. All life is individual and all life is conscious. frankly I suspect that if you could poll the animals many of them would say humans are not or are rarely conscious. It takes the cardinals around here months or years to teach me new tricks.

Without understanding consciousness it is impossible to understand anything at all about life and this especially applies to something so complex as species change.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why don't you name one that doesn't support it and prove me wrong?

Backwards as usual. The burden of proof is upon you. Since you never properly support your claims it is impossible to quote you not doing something. I can't quote that which does not exist.

Yes. It does.

But that's because everyone is using a flawed paradigm that excludes all living things from their belief in "Evolution" and "survival of the fittest". Once you add the nature of life (consciousness) to the equation there is no more "fitness". Once you see all change in all life is sudden there is no need to postulate gradual change. "Evolution" is a very bad paradigm o explain change in species and Darwin blew it because he ASSUMED there were no bottlenecks. Once you make such an ASSUMPTION then "Evolution" evolves from it.

The paradigm is founded on 19th century nonsense. Just give it up.

More nonsense and ducking the burden of proof. I did not expect anything else.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No.

I said ALL EXPERIMENT SUPPORTS MY PARADIGM. It is your job to say one that supports your beliefs but not mine.

To any readers of this several times some of these posters have tried to do this and every time the experiment they cited preferentially supported my theory or could be interpreted to support them both.

This is why nobody wants to try citing experiment; it all agrees with me.

Nope. Backwards again.

 

[ppp]

I said ALL EXPERIMENT SUPPORTS MY PARADIGM. It is your job to say one that supports your beliefs but not mine.

Nope. It is your claim. It is your job to demonstrate it. It is not my problem that you are unable to do so. That is your problem. You have made a claim that you cannot back up. You do not get a pass. You do not get to ask me "How can I possible demonstrate it?" as an excuse. You do not get to push the burden of proof on to me. You are unable to demonstrate your claim, therefore your claim is rejected. Period.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well... ...let's see one!

Are you kidding me? I haven't seen anything you have claimed that has held up under huge numbers of questions, corrections and evidence to the contrary. You ignore all of it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No.

I said ALL EXPERIMENT SUPPORTS MY PARADIGM. It is your job to say one that supports your beliefs but not mine.

To any readers of this several times some of these posters have tried to do this and every time the experiment they cited preferentially supported my theory or could be interpreted to support them both.

This is why nobody wants to try citing experiment; it all agrees with me.

I just love how you make a declaration and don't bother to support it in any way. Then you demand that others support their dissent.

First of all you only claim a theory. You haven't shown anybody a theory. Secondly, everything you claim has been refuted by the evidence presented.

I have my thoughts on why someone can be presented evidence, be corrected innumerable times, constantly avoid questions, avoid requests for evidence, avoid making a valid arguemnt and continue on as if every claim uttered is a verified fact. But I'll keep that to myself.

There's no real point in trying to engage you. Unless I just feel like going in circles for no reason.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This is sufficient for both a working definition and to define the new paradigm.

It is meaningless as a definition for consciousness.

I have supplied a far more complete definition numerous times

No you haven't.

and written at least a 400 word definition in the past.

Not here you haven't. I doubt anywhere.

This is merely a ploy to get longer answers so words and ideas can be taken out of context and attacked.

People just want to know what you are talking about. We finally figured it though.

All life is individual and all life is conscious.

Meaningless.

frankly I suspect that if you could poll the animals many of them would say humans are not or are rarely conscious. It takes the cardinals around here months or years to teach me new tricks.

Meaningless. I could just as easily suspect that they would consider everything I say to be fact. Maybe they did.

Without understanding consciousness it is impossible to understand anything at all about life and this especially applies to something so complex as species change.

That's not true.

 

[cladking]

Are you kidding me? I haven't seen anything you have claimed that has held up under huge numbers of questions, corrections and evidence to the contrary. You ignore all of it.

This is worse than just gainsaying an argument.

You are claiming it has been refuted without ever even making an argument.

How about more pictures of whale fossils. Is this the refutation you remember? You have no evidence for gradual change and I have a solid argument that all change in life is sudden and all observation and experiment supports it.

 

[cladking]

It is meaningless as a definition for consciousness.

Then what's your definition.

Remember it must be a scientific definition that can be studied.

The rest of your post is more gainsaying.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This is worse than just gainsaying an argument.

You are claiming it has been refuted without ever even making an argument.

How about more pictures of whale fossils. Is this the refutation you remember? You have no evidence for gradual change and I have a solid argument that all change in life is sudden and all observation and experiment supports it.

You don't make arguments. That is the problem. If you had, then that would be something. You just cast your claims into the wind and pretend they take root.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Then what's your definition.

Remember it must be a scientific definition that can be studied.

The rest of your post is more gainsaying.

My post is not gainsaying. Is that a canned response that you automatically post regardless to what you are responding? Seems like it.

I gave my definition for consciousness on your latest thread.

You can't study consciousness using your meaningless definition.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Then what's your definition.

Remember it must be a scientific definition that can be studied.

The rest of your post is more gainsaying.

Dismissing what you claim is not gainsaying. It is dismissing empty claims that have neither argument nor evidence in support of them.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This is worse than just gainsaying an argument.

You are claiming it has been refuted without ever even making an argument.

How about more pictures of whale fossils. Is this the refutation you remember? You have no evidence for gradual change and I have a solid argument that all change in life is sudden and all observation and experiment supports it.

Nothing you have claimed has been demonstrated to remotely reflect anything in reality. How does that work for you?

 

[gnostic]

This is sufficient for both a working definition and to define the new paradigm. I have supplied a far more complete definition numerous times and written at least a 400 word definition in the past. This is merely a ploy to get longer answers so words and ideas can be taken out of context and attacked. All life is individual and all life is conscious. frankly I suspect that if you could poll the animals many of them would say humans are not or are rarely conscious. It takes the cardinals around here months or years to teach me new tricks.

Without understanding consciousness it is impossible to understand anything at all about life and this especially applies to something so complex as species change.

But that piece of crap that you’d call “definition”, provide no understanding as to what “consciousness”.

It isn’t definition. It is simply just a vague and personal declaration that is generalization that are not even true for all organisms.

You have also shown no evidence as to bacteria, slime and tree having “consciousness”. Just because you declare they have consciousness, your declarations are not evidence of consciousness in these organisms.

And that by itself demonstrate your utter ignorance as to what evidence are.

Evidence are observations of the physical phenomena, and such observations include information about the phenomena, like the physical characteristics (for instances, measurements, physical states of the evidence (eg solid, liquid, gas, plasma, or inorganic vs organic, or waves vs particles, etc), the possible processes (like how the phenomena works), etc.

Your definition is simply insufficient as far as definition goes if I am being tactful, but if you want me to be brutally honest with you, I would say it’s childish oversimplification and daft.

You keep s science don’t have clear definitions, but there are at least two, but one is purely biological (eg neuroscience), the other is psychological definition...but I have never been a psychology student, so I am far more familiar with the former.

Along with two distinct definitions, it is followed by respective different explanations from two different fields.

Your definition is not better than the other 2, and you definitely didn’t provide a thorough explanation as to what you think consciousness is.

My problem is why you are so insistent in being expert in something that you neither understand, nor can you demonstrate your claims?

Btw, what is your qualification and in what field have you worked?

Are you a biologist, psychologist, archaeologist or philologist?

I am asking because you make a lot of claims in these areas of research as if what you’ve claimed as fact, and yet you sound very amateurish, and you’re rather loose with the facts. I am also asking in because I want to know what field should I take you more seriously than others.

 

[cladking]

You have also shown no evidence as to bacteria, slime and tree having “consciousness”. Just because you declare they have consciousness, your declarations are not evidence of consciousness in these organisms.

Why do you insist on making everything complex. The point of a paradigm is to make things simpler.

Look up the word "definition". You might be surprised. Consciousness is life fulfills all the definitional qualities of "definition".

A paradigm is essentially the set of assumptions that are used to interpret experiment. The current paradigm excludes many experiments whereas mine excludes far fewer and better explains the ones that are included. When viewed in terms of Change in Species the real nature of evolution is more visible and it is apparent EXACTLY where Darwin went wrong. Indeed, it becomes visible that Darwin has already been largely overturned and this new paradigm merely finished the job done by 150 years of study.

 

[cladking]

I would say it’s childish oversimplification and daft.

Thank you. This is very much what I am going for. The simpler a paradigm the more easily applies and the more anomalies stand out. Of course many characteristics of consciousness emerge from its application to experiment and observation and means to study it in detail become apparent.

My problem is why you are so insistent in being expert in something that you neither understand, nor can you demonstrate your claims?

I have never claimed to be an expert in anything.

I am also asking in because I want to know what field should I take you more seriously than others.

You shouldn't listen so much to people. Critical thought is about arguments and evidence, not about training. Just try to address the argument.

 

[gnostic]

Btw, what is your qualification and in what field have you worked?

Are you a biologist, psychologist, archaeologist or philologist?

I have never claimed to be an expert in anything.

You shouldn't listen so much to people. Critical thought is about arguments and evidence, not about training. Just try to address the argument.

Again, you are evading and stalling.

You really can’t answer direct questions.

I was asking you for either the qualifications you have or your experiences in the fields, so I can determine where you are getting these so-called information.

You keep bringing up consciousness in Evolution threads, here and elsewhere, so I am wondering if you have field experiences in this area or not, either in psychology or neuroscience/neurology.

And if you don’t have profession in either of these fields, then where else are you getting your ideas?

You make up a lot of claims.

But whenever someone ask you some directions you have habits of dodging or ignoring these questions or making excuses, like you are doing with your replies.

Let’s try again, regarding to the consciousness:

What is your qualification? Or in what field have you worked?

Are you a biologist, a neurologist (specialist or surgeon), psychologist, or something related to these fields?​

The points in those questions, is finding out where did you get your ideas or information from. Please stop giving me the run-around, because it is a dishonest tactics.

 

[gnostic]

Thank you. This is very much what I am going for. The simpler a paradigm the more easily applies and the more anomalies stand out. Of course many characteristics of consciousness emerge from its application to experiment and observation and means to study it in detail become apparent.

Your simple paradigm don’t define, nor explain anything.

Nothing you have ever claimed regarding to consciousness or to Evolution, have been ground-breaking insightful.

Your so-called paradigm are not backed by any observations, evidence or experiments. You just making empty boastful claims that you have, but it is apparent to everyone here that -

(A) Your ideas are just unsubstantiated opinions.

(B) Most of the time, you don’t know what you are talking about.

(C) Often you are making things up, and pretending what you say are “facts”.​

Because of all the above, no ones are taking you seriously, when you dodge, you ignore or take people’s say out-of-context (or when you attack the strawman).

 

[gnostic]

You shouldn't listen so much to people. Critical thought is about arguments and evidence, not about training. Just try to address the argument.

Except you have presented any evidence or any facts.

You only make unsubstantiated and unscientific claims, which are no better than personal opinions or beliefs.

You haven’t been thinking critically or logically...no all you do is validate yourself, and these are called confirmation bias & circular reasoning. You do this here in this thread and elsewhere (eg What would it mean to your science belief if evolution is false? & Ancient Reality).

If you had evidence to support your “critical thought”, then you would have presented your evidence without hesitation...but instead you hide your lack of evidence behind lame excuses.

I am not the only one who have notice your non-compliance to show these “ALL EXPERIMENTS” to support your so-called “theory”. These were your words:

I said ALL EXPERIMENT SUPPORTS MY PARADIGM.

If that were true, then where are they?

You have yet to present one, cladking.