Darwin's Illusion

[cladking]

What Darwin has done is manipulate abstractions rather than performing a single experiment.

The manipulation of abstractions is often called 'inductive reasoning". While I don't believe it is never correct the results are very much language and thought dependent. Results may not in any way reflect reality. Typically results are "correct" only in a left handed sort of way or are correct only from a single perspective. There is far too much inductive reasoning in all the soft sciences. Like all conclusions they are very difficult to shake because they are founded in fundamental beliefs and we all reason circularly.

Darwin's primary belief was that no "God" is required to explain life. He then proceeded to study the change ibn life inductively without ever even defining "consciousness" which in tandem with genetics explains all behavior and is the cause of the change in species he simply ignored while focusing on abstractions. He believed there was no God and then determined there was no need for God to explain all of life. The reality is whether there is a God or not he missed it by a country mile. The reality we should pray to God he was wrong about everything and we'll prove it BEFORE we go extinct. Smoke 'em if you got 'em.

 

[cladking]

Personally, I'd like to take Darwin out of the discussion and focus on modern biology.

I believe modern biology is much closer to being right than Darwin was.

But modern biology still has a hangover from Darwin and fixate on effects (survival of the fittest) rather than the cause (behavior). Until they admit their methodology is suspect there may be little or no progress.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The manipulation of abstractions is often called 'inductive reasoning". While I don't believe it is never correct the results are very much language and thought dependent. Results may not in any way reflect reality. Typically results are "correct" only in a left handed sort of way or are correct only from a single perspective. There is far too much inductive reasoning in all the soft sciences. Like all conclusions they are very difficult to shake because they are founded in fundamental beliefs and we all reason circularly.

Darwin's primary belief was that no "God" is required to explain life. He then proceeded to study the change ibn life inductively without ever even defining "consciousness" which in tandem with genetics explains all behavior and is the cause of the change in species he simply ignored while focusing on abstractions. He believed there was no God and then determined there was no need for God to explain all of life. The reality is whether there is a God or not he missed it by a country mile. The reality we should pray to God he was wrong about everything and we'll prove it BEFORE we go extinct. Smoke 'em if you got 'em.

Nice try. But Darwin was still a Christian when he formed his theory.

 

[gnostic]

With a false assumption like this you are in danger of coming up with gradualism.

Natural Selection is one of the mechanisms in Evolution, not "survival of the fittest".

Are you so ignorantly dishonest that you must persist in spewing your false information?

The mechanism is called Natural Selection.

That's the fact, not semantics. Man, you are being so stubborn with spreading misinformation.

"Semantics" is playing word games by the failure to define or changing the meanings of words. Every word is perfectly acceptable in conversation if you define it. Remember "metaphysics; the basis of science". You play word games and then accuse others of the same tactic.

I am not the one childishly using false semantics.

Can you not say anything that's true?

You keep making false claim after false claim.

And you are uneducated in history as well as well in natural sciences.

The fact is that Herbert Spencer invented "survival of the fittest", not just to be used in biology, but more so in sociology, in which created a social & political philosophy called Social Darwinism, another thing that Spencer created, but you don't understand.

You just simply blame Darwin for everything that he didn't say or do. That's pathetic.

 

[Audie]

Natural Selection is one of the mechanisms in Evolution, not "survival of the fittest".

Are you so ignorantly dishonest that you must persist in spewing your false information?

The mechanism is called Natural Selection.

That's the fact, not semantics. Man, you are being so stubborn with spreading misinformation.



I am not the one childishly using false semantics.

Can you not say anything that's true?

You keep making false claim after false claim.

And you are uneducated in history as well as well in natural sciences.

The fact is that Herbert Spencer invented "survival of the fittest", not just to be used in biology, but more so in sociology, in which created a social & political philosophy called Social Darwinism, another thing that Spencer created, but you don't understand.

You just simply blame Darwin for everything that he didn't say or do. That's pathetic.

" survival of the fittest" is a simple term for simple minds.

 

[rational experiences]

If science by human men thoughts perceive is first as a natural human men. Spiritual aware first natural. Each human is first human having living to day a returned human experience.

From history a babies human adult choice technology machine. Sacrificed life to now returned human healed.

So you say now as natural men I'm conscious learned of all man's researched science past wrongs.

Yet youre the false Christ. The scientist.

As you all self idolate in science as if first held energy as gods mass is your body ownership. Just a human.

You are the reason humans bio life was sacrificed. As technology changed our heavens.

Today you blame the heavens change.

Science by natural man terms said you now own a mental health condition.

You say I realise when our heavens conditions change so does biology. It's proven already.

It's my warning now...why I don't support occult technology science.

Your observations said by research life cells changed again as before. It is medical and is for human safety now. Biology science.

As any living biology term is life's medical safety.

Heavens changed before humans life cell was a monkey like a mutation.

As a dinosaur did not mutate into a sick monkey to be a sick human. Mutated.

As healthy monkeys now own healthy monkey babies. A sick monkey from attacked body gets a sick monkey.

As I get a cold and you might not...
says by our heavens. Personal attack.

A healthy human meant to have healthy babies gains mutated babies.

So men said earths heavens had changed. Sex since brings forth sick life.

As you aren't first healthy man scientist first ....as if you are just beginning science for the first time. You are all lying.

You all act as if you personally are the first ever human.

Science says first human life mineral Skeletal dusts legal proof no theism exists.

As men said if the same gas in a heavens owned giant dinosaur healthy bodies then only heavenly changed mass now owned why biology is different now.

The actual exact advice. Not a thesis.

Ice mass pressure changes gained colder gases by mass. Not cold gas as a cold gas. Mass of cold gases.

Science thesis ...a cold gas. Isn't mass of cold gas.

Yet egotism gets in your way.

So I looked at my mutual human brother. Still abusing his sister. Asked what for?

It involves you being the theist. Science application by men agreed terms were all humans first. False idolator position by rich men's past.

Pretty basic advice why. Self authoritarian given position.

So if you still agree you haven't healed nor returned to mutual equal consciousness. The proof. Is lived.

Man says today if I change our heavens status again we might all die.

Dinosaur life owns the proof.

As pressures in space law is exact.

Without heavens cell pressure osmosis we'll all die. As water owns living food microbes and minerals.

Men tell men by science that science is wrong by human expression.

So theists just humans had never ever owned a human story why they existed.

Humans legal position stated so. Theists just human first had lied.

Man said law is earth a God body of rock created it's own heavens sacrificed by the sun.

As the entity God. No thesis.

Not any condition a human.

How you interpret old teachings is egotism status rich men now reasons. Organisation first...truth second.

Science medical said a human lives owning dna genesis proof no human life exists as a monkey. Closest relative only.

How you abuse that advice as a human theist is the legal position.

A man said as I'm not woman celled hormone woman. Her cell.ova ovary changed being a human woman's cell to a man's.

Is immaculate man conceived self from a human woman's cell body.

Was a scientific statement the heavens gas not given baby man his life back. A human woman's life body womb had.

You totally misinterpreted the teaching as you wanted to own heavens god energy mass. Same story now being relived. We already were taught what you caused.

Brothers who don't learn as they are self possessed men. The scientist role play only.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Just more words. Just an endless stream of semantical arguments.

Sounds like you don't even know what a semantic argument is.

You've never even really countered my first and weakest argument that all observed change in all life at all levels is sudden.

How could I not have encountered that silly "argument"? You've only repeated it ad nauseum more times then I can count. It was ridiculous the first time and it was ridiculous every time after that.

Until you address any argument or present relevant argument I might not respond further.

There's nothing to address.
What is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

You can be certain if I don't respond it's because your "evidence" isn't valid to your or my claims about how species change or it is just more semantical nonsense.

I have no need for evidence to dismiss bare assertions.
All I require is pointing out the "bare" part.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

IBut no one has really seen or observed fish turning into (ok, evolving) landroving animals

Why would you think anyone with an average lifetime of 80 years would observe processes that take millions of years to unfold?

And why would you think that observing a process from A to Z is the only way to know it occurs?

Pluto was discovered in the 1930s. It's orbit takes 248 years.
It hasn't even completed a single orbit since it was discovered. Yet we know it takes 248 years.

We can take your DNA and some other person's DNA and determine if that other person is your sibling. We can KNOW if they are your sibling. And we don't need your birth certificates or observations of your parents having sex and giving birth you you both to KNOW you are siblings.

Your argument is ridiculous and a serious case of willful ignorance.
As usual.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I already proved you were wrong using Darwin's own words!!!

But like every argument you want to turn this into a semantical argument.

The projection is hilarious

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I There MUST BE experiment underpinning all science BY DEFINITION.

And there is.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Natural selection implies that the organisms select which mutations they like or can deal with effectively in order to adapt.

 

[cladking]

Pluto was discovered in the 1930s. It's orbit takes 248 years.
It hasn't even completed a single orbit since it was discovered. Yet we know it takes 248 years.

And now you're conflating real science with reading the "fossil record".

All you have is coprolite.

 

[cladking]

What is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

I'd comment at length but a friend is in her 80th year of giving birth and this might be the big day.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And now you're conflating real science with reading the "fossil record".

All you have is coprolite.

And now you're pretending as if the fossil record is the only evidence we have for common ancestry of species, while in reality it is the weakest of evidence.

The genetic record makes common ancestry of species a FACT.

You also conveniently didn't quote the part where I gave the example of testing DNA to determine if 2 people are siblings, regardless of knowing who the parents were.

But I have come to expect such intellectual dishonesty from creo's. They have nothing else.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'd comment at length but a friend is in her 80th year of giving birth and this might be the big day.

Whatever you feel like makes you able to dodge and avoid the obvious.

 

[cladking]

And now you're pretending as if the fossil record is the only evidence we have for common ancestry of species, while in reality it is the weakest of evidence.

When it's not semantics (the most pathetic of all arguments) it's strawmen. Just because some ancestor species exist is not in any way evidence they changed gradually because of survival of the fittest.

You can see only what you believe and you see evidence everywhere that doesn't exist.

You also conveniently didn't quote the part where I gave the example of testing DNA to determine if 2 people are siblings, regardless of knowing who the parents were.

So!? What is your point?

But I have come to expect such intellectual dishonesty from creo's. They have nothing else.

Between strawmen, semantics and ad hominins you have everything but a shred of evidence.

 

[cladking]

Whatever you feel like makes you able to dodge and avoid the obvious.

I have no clue what this means other than that you will not respond to any of my arguments or the arguments of anyone you don't agree with.

You don't discuss. You lecture, play word games, create strawmen, and and insult anyone who doesn't bend low for your beliefs.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

When it's not semantics (the most pathetic of all arguments) it's strawmen. Just because some ancestor species exist is not in any way evidence they changed gradually because of survival of the fittest.

Is the second sentence the strawman you were babbling about in the first sentence?

You can see only what you believe and you see evidence everywhere that doesn't exist.

Your projection is noted.

So!? What is your point?

You just made that point for me with your "so!?"

The irony is completely lost on you, it seems.

Between strawmen, semantics and ad hominins you have everything but a shred of evidence.

WOOSH

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have no clue what this means other than that you will not respond to any of my arguments or the arguments of anyone you don't agree with.

Where in the post I was replying to did you make an argument?

You don't discuss. You lecture

It's the only thing one can do when confronted with utter ignorance.

, play word games, create strawmen, and and insult anyone who doesn't bend low for your beliefs.

Projecting again.



ps: I have completely given up on discussing anything with you with a grain of seriousness.
I see no reason to continue exercises in futility.
There's no point in trying to reason with someone who's already decided on the answers before even asking the questions and who's hellbend on being wrong.

 

[Audie]

And now you're pretending as if the fossil record is the only evidence we have for common ancestry of species, while in reality it is the weakest of evidence.

The genetic record makes common ancestry of species a FACT.

You also conveniently didn't quote the part where I gave the example of testing DNA to determine if 2 people are siblings, regardless of knowing who the parents were.

But I have come to expect such intellectual dishonesty from creo's. They have nothing else.

It's only intellectual dishonesty if the person
knows better but does it anyway.
May as well give the benefit of the doubt.