Yes, I got my answer many posts back
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Darwin's Illusion
- Thread starter Neuropteron
- Start date
Yes, I got my answer many posts back
You are absolutely right. There is no proof.
It seems a reasonable basis for you to reject the science. That and losing DNA through crossbreeding of species so that they become other species. While being nothing I have ever heard of, it certainly must be evidence that you can use to reject the science. And special pleading is always as good as evidence gets to reject a theory no matter how sound it is. You accept some science, so that should easily mean you can just randomly reject other science for any reason you choose including that you accept some.
Absolutely. Gorillas reproduce gorillas. Fish reproduce fish. Humans reproduce humans. Birds reproduce birds. Though the theory of evolution doesn't predict anything differently and no one expects it that fact alone seems so important to you that it demands you reject the theory.
I think you can rest easy rejecting science on the basis of all these points you have made. I would suggest that this wraps it all up for you. It was a pleasure discussing these things with you, but I understand if you feel you have proven your point and no longer need involve yourself in them.
Audie
Veteran Member
Isn't it a marvel, the way people who think they can outsmart
every scientist in earth with such deficient thanking?
Just with the " proof" thing they are asking for something not found
in logic or reason on this earth.
Maybe this would come clear to them if they lost a court case.
All their money, their freedom, their life despite innocence. Despite great stacks of
the most solid evidence.
For lo, "PROOF" does not exist in court either.
" You have no proof that you are innocent" say the judge and jury,
" So off with his head."
cladking
Well-Known Member
Because "science" is a tool; no more, no less. It is a tool designed to be wielded by the individual in order to learn about reality. Its nature is such that it can not directly investigate its own assumptions and axioms. That you believe reductionistic science is practiced by our species and operates on intelligence is simply irrelevant no matter how strongly you believe it or how right it sounds. Every experiment must stand on its own independently of the prevailing paradigm and interpretations. All of reality affects every other part of reality so every experiment must reflect reality simultaneously. You can not pick and choose which experiment applies to a simple event or process because every single one applies. Not only does every experiment apply but everything that you don't know and every experiment that has yet to be invented applies as well.
Science is a very blunt tool. Reason is sharper but outside of logic and knowledge reason is very weak and loses its edge immediately. If you reject reason you can not understand science so it becomes a jumble of oscilloscopes and computers with no connections one to another.
So when do you think we'll learn what really causes speciation? When will we learn how some patients lived anyway? When will we learn about the basic forces of nature or are you like the surgeons in the 1850's who already knew everything because they saved lives and were well regarded as scientists and Gods? They knew EXACTLY why they used dirty instruments and had perfectly good reasons.
Fauci traded the lives of young healthy people for the lives of old sick people. I'm sure he had many "good" reasons.
How many times have I said everyone does what he believes is best? How many times have I said everyone makes perfect sense in terms of his premises? How many times have I said all of reality is connected and everything that's real applies ALL THE TIME. It applies to Fauci and it might apply to every individual who ever lived with the possible exception of Dr josef mangala.
You keep wanting to try (unsuccessfully) to dismantle my theory (beliefs) one plank at a time but they all apply all the time. Sure if you can show anything isn't true then you could destroy it bit by bit but you can't. Arguments that derive from erroneous assumptions simply don't apply. It is simply not legitimate to reply to the observation that all change in life is sudden by citing the fossil record which I agree shows change in species but DO NOT AGREE shows Evolution or survival of the fittest.
Last edited:
cladking
Well-Known Member
People who wield this like a weapon don't understand that there are two sharp edges. Not only does it absolve believers of having to prove their own interpretations, their own paradigms, but it prevents them from disproving other interpretations.
If it were a weapon it would cut both ways.
The reality is science is confined to its metaphysics and its metaphysics does not allow certainty. Yet somehow or other this lack of certainty leads many believers to omniscience; "my theory can't be disproven and your theory can't be proven therefore my theory stands and you aren't even wrong".
Amazing!
I asked, "Can you connect your comment to mine?" and that was your response. Why are you discussing tools? What did I write that caused you to give me that answer?
You and I aren't on the same page here. I think we know many if not all the causes of speciation now.
And this relates to our discussion how? We were talking about the advent of antiseptic technique in surgery.
Why would you characterize them like that? They knew what they knew, and they knew that more would be discovered. I'm a retired physician. I never thought that we were done learning. We learned new things while I was practicing medicine. Many new diseases - Legionnaires, toxic shock, Lyme, HIV. And many new therapies. Much has been learned about aging. But yeah, doctors take a lot of ribbing. There was a cartoon of an old white-haired guy walking on a cloud wearing surgical scrubs with the caption, "That's God. He thinks he's a doctor." And another with a man with a tambourine head at a party correcting a guest, "That's Dr. Tambourine Man now."
There was no concept of instruments being "dirty" before there was a germ theory of disease (Koch, Pasteur), which arrived in the second half of the nineteenth century. Thereafter, Semmelweis demonstrated the benefit of hand washing.
Here's another of your unsubstantiated claims. By now, you should know the fate of these. If you won't make a compelling, evidenced argument, you won't change any minds except those willing to believe with less. I am not one of them.
I don't know what your beliefs are beyond a few, and they don't need dismantling. Are you familiar with Hitchens' Razor? "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." I wish you would try to assimilate that. More unsupported claims will result in the same, so why bother with them?
I don't need to falsify unsupported claims, although I have rebutted a few. You'd need to support them first.
cladking
Well-Known Member
ALL LIFE IS INDIVIDUAL. This is an obvious truism that is simply ignored by Darwin and believers. That some patients could survive being beaten with the oldest crustiest two by four implies there might be something different about the patient, the individual germs, or some other forces, processes, and specifics involved. It is not "knowledge" to say 99 out of a 100 patients died. Knowledge would be identifying why one died or another did not.
All life and every single change in life is individual. No "species" ever really changed at all; individuals did. Individuals before a speciation event were different than those afterward. Saying 100% of the individuals died of one species and a new species arose who were 100% of a new species means nothing at all and is presumptuous. You're merely recounting impressions caused by fossils. All the taxonomies and abstractions in the world mean nothing to the individuals whose life is represented by a fossil. conjecture about why it's different mean nothing without experiment.
Darwin confused the cart and the horse yet nobody chooses to comment when I say EXACTLY how he made such blatant errors and arrived at the incorrect answers. There is no such thing as "species". Life is consciousness. All individuals are fit. All of reality affects all of reality. Populations are not stable. Across the board Darwin was wrong. His assumptions were wrong. His observations are not experiment. All experiment applies to all things. Placebo effect is still real even as a butterfly in China creates a hurricane.
I'm sorry reality is so complex but it's not my doing. You must deal with it and science must adapt to new knowledge and invent new methodology.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No one is ignoring that. You simple do not understand why the proper phrase is "Populations evolve, not individuals."
cladking
Well-Known Member
I suspected as much. One of the things I like about most medical doctors is almost all of them do keep learning, usually even after they retire. I believe it's mostly because medicine is highly dependent on science but it's also very much hands on and experience is so valuable to their practice. Doctors also tend to be more clever and anchored in practicality. They also tend to have a better understanding of why science works; metaphysics.
But even doctors are still homo omnisciencis. They are more aware than most their knowledge is incomplete but then they are still prone to believe science has all the answers and the way it's practiced is the only way it can be. They still think all the major formatting of medical knowledge is in place and there are merely many gaps to fill in. A cardiologist once told me that in his opinion the many volumes written about the human heart contained a quarter of everything there is to know about the subject!! Of course I disagree and wouldn't be overly surprised if we already know twice as much as when he said it.
Part of the response was, indeed, just joking but the point stands. Doctors, physicists, and believers in science all thought that human knowledge was pretty much complete in 1850, 1650, 1050 and 1550 BC. This is the human condition and then when there are upheavals in science every few decades everyone just kindda forgets after everything changes one funeral at a time.
cladking
Well-Known Member
If you ever thought I said "an individual evolves to become a new species", you parsed my sentence incorrectly: ie- other than the intent.
I think everyone including most scientists are ignoring these things. There is little choice in most instances because science is reductionistic in nature.
But some of these points are critical to understanding "change in species". If the existence of bottlenecks is not recognized, exactly as Darwin did, then it would be impossible to see change in species that occurred at any bottleneck. The individual will keep looking for the how species change and its cause. We stop looking for anything when we find it never realizing that what we find is dependent on the assumptions we had when the search began.
I asked, "And this relates to our discussion how?" in response to your comment, "When will we learn how some patients lived anyway?" Your answer appears unrelated. And apart from explaining nothing, it's just more unevidenced claims - Darwin and others not noticing that all lives are individual, no species ever changed, life is consciousness - and unrelated comments about placebo and butterfly effects.
Reality is not all that complex, at least not learning effective rules for navigating our world.
This is a caricature. If it were correct, progress in medicine would have ceased.
Yes, there have been many who made such mistakes. Fortunately, many didn't listen to them. Here is a collection of them. They're all pretty funny today. You might like number 7 (note the date, 1872):
[1] "Rail travel at high speed is not possible, because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia." - Dr Dionysius Lardner (1793-1859), professor of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy, University College London
[2] "What, sir, would you make a ship sail against the wind and currents by lighting a bonfire under her deck? I pray you, excuse me, I have not the time to listen to such nonsense." - Napoleon Bonaparte, when told of Robert Fulton's steamboat, 1800s
[3] "The phonograph has no commercial value at all." - Thomas Edison, American inventor, 1880s
[4] "What can be more palpably absurd than the prospect held out of locomotives traveling twice as fast as stagecoaches?" - The Quarterly Review, March, 1825
[5] "The abolishment of pain in surgery is a chimera. It is absurd to go on seeking it…knife and pain are two words in surgery that must forever be associated in the consciousness of the patient." - Dr. Alfred Velpeau, French surgeon, 1839.
[6] "No one will pay good money to get from Berlin to Potsdam in one hour when he can ride his horse there in one day for free." - King William I of Prussia, on hearing of the invention of trains, 1864.
[7] "Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction." - Pierre Pachet, British surgeon and Professor of Physiology at Toulouse, 1872.
[8] "The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut from the intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon." - John Eric Ericksen, British surgeon, appointed Surgeon Extraordinary to Queen Victoria, 1873.
[9] "Such startling announcements as these should be deprecated as being unworthy of science and mischievious to its true progress." - William Siemens, on Edison's light bulb, 1880
[10] "X-rays will prove to be a hoax." - Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society, 1883.
[11] "We are probably nearing the limit of all we can know about astronomy." - Simon Newcomb, Canadian-born American astronomer, 1888.
[12] "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." - Lord Kelvin, British mathematician and physicist, president of the British Royal Society, 1895
[13] "Radio has no future." - Lord Kelvin, Scottish mathematician and physicist, former president of the Royal Society, 1897
[14] "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now; All that remains is more and more precise measurement." - Lord Kelvin, speaking to the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1900.
[15] "The horse is here to stay but the automobile is only a novelty-a fad." - The president of the Michigan Savings Bank advising Henry Ford's lawyer not to invest in the Ford Motor Co., 1903
[16] "Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value." - Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre, 1904
[17] "The idea that cavalry will be replaced by these iron coaches is absurd. It is little short of treasonous." - Comment of Aide-de-camp to Field Marshal Haig
[18] "The energy produced by the breaking down of the atom is a very poor kind of thing. Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine." - Ernest Rutherford, shortly after splitting the atom for the first time
[19] "There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom." - Robert Millikan, American physicist and Nobel Prize winner, 1923
[20] "While theoretically and technically television may be feasible, commercially and financially it is an impossibility, a development of which we need waste little time dreaming." - Lee DeForest, American radio pioneer and inventor of the vacuum tube, 1926
[21] "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."...Thomas Watson, president of IBM.
[22] "There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."... Ken Olsen, founder of DEC.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No parsing needed on my part. Your intent was clear.
cladking
Well-Known Member
Is there anything you want to argue about here?
If you like facile and superficial answers and the inability to act in the face of anomalies and the unexpected, then I agree with you. But if you want to live in the real world and progress human understanding of how things work then there's usually no choice but to look a little deeper.
This is the "human" condition. I never suggested doctors were somehow better than the rest of us.
It has taken the human race 4000 years just to begin to realize how wholly ignorant we really are. It took some 4000 years just to get to the computer.
And we still believe the pyramid builders mustta used ramps!!!
People have had all sorts of ideas about the limitations of science. I actually believe science has a very very long way to progress but it will have to "change" to do it. Theory is approaching the limitations of experiment. Progress will slow. Technological improvements will slow within 50 years without new theory. But UI still believe there are some things that are simple impossibilities. Time travel, for instance, can never happen. Cause will always proceed effect even though there will be found things where this isn't at all apparent. Everything that occurs will be logical and tied directly to everything else.
It is interesting to watch a hole get dug, then double and dig some more. I have no idea what the similarity of housecat DNA is in relation to any other animal. Or plant for that matter. If wanted to know, I would look it up.
I believe that it is the species Homo madethisup that gives us the most trouble with this.
I'm practically overwhelmed with the irony I am reading.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
The basic tenet(s) that I reject is not that dna is lost between crossbreeding, but that (and I use a simple analogy) fish become landrovers. And fish and birds are a bit different to the point that it makes more sense to me that God created these things separately, even IF crossbreeding was the means that certain types (species?) became distinct. Such as kangaroos and whatever other types of animals that resemble kangaroos. So again, no matter what theoretical scientists say, I see no reasonable reason that fish, for instance, became landrovers evolving still further. I know what is said. I do not believe it and you and I know there's no real proof. That's me, and that's where I leave it right now. But, going back to Adam and Eve, yes, I do not believe mankind is hundreds of thousands of years old or even 20,000 years old. I have decided that radiocarbon dating or other means of dating fossils and cave paintings are not correctly assessed. I do not know exactly what Moses meant when he wrote about the creation of Adam and Eve, I fully believe he will be resurrected and I will have the opportunity to hear from him how he learned these things.
P.S. I have not rejected science. I appreciate the research scientists have done in many areas, including vaccines and many other things.
Is that an allusion to the Red Queen hypothesis too? Co-evolution is just going to confuse them even more.
Audie
Veteran Member
That is the beauty of this country, we have a Constitution that allows us to reject anything for no good reason at all. Or for any reason we come up with out of a desperation to maintain our personal ideologies that have no proof what-so-ever. After all, some see the right to an opinion as validation that their opinion is on an equal footing with the informed opinions of experts who spent entire lifetimes studying the things that are rejected with a wave of the hand by the less informed.
I love this country and I respect your patriotism in exercising your rights.
P.S. I haven't got the first clue what losing DNA through crossbreeding species even means. But what the heck, it's as good a reason to reject science as arbitrarily deciding just not to agree with radiometric dating by empty dismissal.
Having dismissed all of this, I will miss seeing your posts about how birds are still birds, kangaroos are still kangaroos and everything is still what it was before.