Darwin's Illusion

[Subduction Zone]

OK

Are you going to stop running away? I have my doubts.

 

[cladking]

No, you may as well be reading tea leaves. Don't assume that others lack the ability to think rationally.

You seem not to read anyone else's posts but rather mine them for words to which to respond.

LOL! You continue to admit that moving the ears is vestigial. Just moving your ears is not good enough. It has to serve a purpose.

Of course it serves a purpose; to locate the source of sounds and to hear better.

 

[cladking]

There you go making your easily refutable error again. There are limited times of gradual change. There never was a prediction of records of gradual change for all species. There is a prediction that we would find transitional fossils. And we have found countless transitional fossils and they all confirm the phylogenetic tree. There neve was a prediction that we would find all of the transitional fossils.

More semantics. "Transitional fossils" are just two less different species than had been known. It does not mean or imply that there was a gradual change between the original two species. You are merely reading the fossil record like a mystic reads tea leaves.

 

[cladking]

Why do those accurate accusations bother you so much?

Once again, you should be trying to learn. Ask proper questions and people will help you.

This sounds just like something a priest would say.

 

[cladking]

In fact, from my religious perspective, with respect to believing in God, there is no chances or percentages, you either believe or you don’t.

Most people will say the same thing about "Evolution" or "Egyptology" as well.

I simply don't recognize anything as being 100% certain because everything is dependent on assumptions, definitions, and axioms. Even if something were "certain" it would still be dependent.

“Natural selection” doesn’t cause any change. mutations are not random. Directed mutations cause very specific changes to allow an organism to better fit its environment. See # 1245

I agree that some "intelligence" appears to underlie reality but can't say whether this is the "Initial Cause" or something that might one day be more easily defined.

In the meantime I'm not going to forget that I know nothing at all that can be taken as evidence that there is no God. I'm not going to forget that science and reason are merely tools to try to understand reality and that those who worship science have false idols and their Priests are sometimes fools. Darwin could be the king fool except he was highly advanced for the age in which he lived.

Darwin's Illusion | Page 155 | Religious Forums

If I haven't read this I will now.

Consciousness is an integral aspect of reality that cannot be excluded.

Yes. It is also a part of it.

Despite knowing nothing about it and lacking even a scientific definition Darwin wanted to reduce it not to experiment which would be unjustified but to observation which is laughable.

That anyone thinks he can look at lots of fossils and understand life or how it changes is ludicrous.

 

[cladking]

This leads to the conclusion that there are two distinct types of “substances” in the universe: the physical, and the non-physical, with the human mind fitting in the latter category. This suggests, though, that the brain is a physical and biological object, while the mind is something else, resulting in so-called “mind-body dualism.”

This is from post #3096.

I believe that this is a manifestation of the way we think. Other consciousness sees reality but we see what we expect. We are analog thinkers in a digital world.

There are lots of shavings cast off pounding a round peg into a square hole and the "Theory of Evolution" is one of them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You seem not to read anyone else's posts but rather mine them for words to which to respond.

No, there are times that I put a limit on the ignorance that I will respond to. That is not "mining". When people are all over the place I often suggest that they go over one point at a time so that they can begin to understand what they are talking about instead of being fractally wrong, as you are far too often.

Of course it serves a purpose; to locate the source of sounds and to hear better.

It did at one point for humans. The point is that it does not do so any longer. The minimal movement that one can make with excessive effort makes almost no difference at all. One would be better off swiveling one's head. You used the wrong tense. It served a purpose. It no longer does so. It is therefore vestigial.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This sounds just like something a priest would say.

Does it? If a person that was totally ignorant of the Bible claimed that "Christianity is just a belief that nailing someone to a tree will give them eternal life" a priest would be justified in telling them that they need to learn more about the basics of the Bible.

Just because a priest says something does not automatically make them wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

More semantics. "Transitional fossils" are just two less different species than had been known. It does not mean or imply that there was a gradual change between the original two species. You are merely reading the fossil record like a mystic reads tea leaves.

Hardly. Transitional fossils are a clearly defined concept. It appears that you do not like clear definitions. Why is that?

And yes, transitional fossils are evidence for evolution. But then you do not understand the concept of evidence and to date have been afraid to learn. Are you ready to learn yet, or are you going to make ignorant claims and treat them as fact?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's like talking to a broken record.

 

[Audie]

It's like talking to a broken record.

Every so often one of those shows up.
loaded down with great bandoliers
full of creofacts taken from some creomill
like AIG.
None have the education to know an ulna from
a tibia, or otherwise qualify for entrance to a
remedial intro to biology class.
Just show up, launch a few gishes-o- garbage,
act all rude, superior, arrogant! Posturing that they know more than a scientist on earth.

Engaging with that has all the appeal of engaging with a hognised skunk.

Then off they go back to creoland to brag how they defeated a roomful of them atheist evolutionists

 

[cladking]

It's like talking to a broken record.

But your own vacuous claims are sacrosanct so repeating them is the logical course with heretics.

 

[cladking]

The problem happens when we try to force the explanations of what we don’t know to fit within what we do know. Which necessarily leads to a misleading oversimplification. The absolute reality can very well be beyond our knowledge/imagination.

Exactly.

Reductionistic science doesn't work with anything that can't be reduced through definition and experiment. So we read tea leaves and coprolite mistaking them for living things.

The work of the Ancients proves beyond doubt that they had access to different type of ancient technologies with means/methods beyond our grasp/knowledge today, or possibly discovered but not allowed for publication. Ancient knowledge was never allowed or meant for the public, it was exclusively kept for the inner circle and may very well continue to be.

This is more true than most can imagine.

Our science is merely a tool and like all tools is good for one single job. Ancient science was a different sort of tool and turned up different soil.

While the knowledge of ancient work may shed light on aspects of reality not known or clear to us, but the knowledge of God's work is attainable through the observations of everything in existence. “From the knowledge of God's work, we shall know him", “from the knowledge of the relative effects, we shall know the absolute cause".

We each have a remarkable ability to see patterns and to think them out. It requires principally imagination but schools today suppress imagination. Kowtow to Peers because they have the answers.

Peers are modern day Priests who tell you not to look behind the curtain.

 

[cladking]

Just because a priest says something does not automatically make them wrong.

And just because a Peer says something doesn't make them right.

A "peer" by definition is an individual with extensive education who shares models with others with extensive education. A "peer" who doesn't share similar models will not be accepted.

If one Peer is wrong then they probably all are.

 

[cladking]

Then off they go back to creoland to brag how they defeated a roomful of them atheist evolutionists

It must be especially painful to lose this argument to a crank and someone with faith (et al) who agree about most things but especially that Darwin was wrong and it has already been shown even by what you suggest is "atheistic science".

I would say you not so much lost the argument as the faithful of science have made a far less than exemplary attempt at the debate. I can't think of a single point you have won but reality isn't a debate so this is only relevant to those seeking the truth or trying to understand the reality. Darwin was wrong and "survival of the fittest" is a manifestation of evil.

 

[Audie]

It must be especially painful to lose this argument to a crank and someone with faith (et al) who agree about most things but especially that Darwin was wrong and it has already been shown even by what you suggest is "atheistic science".

I would say you not so much lost the argument as the faithful of science have made a far less than exemplary attempt at the debate. I can't think of a single point you have won but reality isn't a debate so this is only relevant to those seeking the truth or trying to understand the reality. Darwin was wrong and "survival of the fittest" is a manifestation of evil.

You are funny. Sort of. In a sad way.
I wish you well.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Every so often one of those shows up.
loaded down with great bandoliers
full of creofacts taken from some creomill
like AIG.
None have the education to know an ulnar from
a tibia, or otherwise qualify for entrance to,a
remedial intro to biology class.
Just show up launch a few gishes-o- garbage,
act all rude, superior, arrogant! Posturing that they know more than a scientist on earth.

Engaging with that has all the appeal of engaging with a hognised skunk.

Then off they go back to creoland to brag how they defeated a roomful of them atheist evolutionists

This thread became a repetition of repetitions, mantras of mantras about about funerals and peers and consciousness that makes no sense.

I did come up with a little poem I thought was pretty good and summarize the positions taken on this thread.

I think at this point, it might be useful for a laugh.


Repeat what Denis Noble says.

Overstate the significance in public address.
Knock over the pieces like it's pigeon chess.
Denial of evidence must be professed.
It's the anti-science position at its best.

Repeat what Denis Noble says.

Ignore the bones in the paleontology lab.
Random mutation's just too drab.
Back your assertions with a cherry-picked defense.
Mischaracterize what science presents.

Repeat what Denis Noble says.

When reason and logic just won't do.
Just declare victory to the entire coop.
Redefine terms till they don't make sense.
Pretend understanding that isn't possessed.

Repeat what Denis Noble says.

Repeat what Denis Noble says.

Repeat what Denis Noble says.

Repeat what Denis Noble says.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And just because a Peer says something doesn't make them right.

A "peer" by definition is an individual with extensive education who shares models with others with extensive education. A "peer" who doesn't share similar models will not be accepted.

If one Peer is wrong then they probably all are.

LMAO!! You still do not understand peer review.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This thread became a repetition of repetitions, mantras of mantras about about funerals and peers . . .

Not "peers". It is singular, and upper case "Peer"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But your own vacuous claims are sacrosanct so repeating them is the logical course with heretics.

Your used language exposed your intellectual dishonesty.
And after repeating myself several times and correcting the same mistakes as many times,... there comes a point where it's just not worth bothering anymore.

I see no reason to continue playing games of pigeon chess.