Darwin's Illusion

[YoursTrue]

I realize that pharmaceutical companies make tests of their products. And formulas. (postulations) Thus these are tested, often not 100% curative. Generally the medications are not "proven" to be successful but doctors prescribe them anyway, knowing full well the data doesn't show/prove/demionstrate/evidence that these placebos work. But doctors prescribe them anyway.

" cannot learn" is a pretequisite to
Creationist faith.

Furthermore, tests (note: TESTS) demonstrate/prove/show that caffeine produces frequent urination in men. Please note TESTS - not junk taking substances and pretending that it means evolution. Hope that helps. Not sure it will when people refuse to see what's there. Hey, take care! Can Caffeine Cause Frequent Urination - AhCoffee.net.
Learn or not learn. Compare or not compare. Hey, have a good one!

 

[YoursTrue]

I wasn't there so I don't know.

What I am saying is that the story in the Bible is just about exactly what I'd expect to see if story were interpreted from older writing by individuals who did not understand science or the meaning of the story. The event was the official change in language.

I am hamstrung by only being able to base my models on experiment and fact.



All things are evidence. Reality is binary; either something exists or it does not.

The Bible exists.



The story in Genesis exists but it also exists in other sources dating all the way back to about 1800 BC/

The more I read the Bible, frankly my dear, the more apparent/obvious it becomes to me that it is not a 'made-up' document, but truthful and accurate. And more so (also @Dan From Smithville ) the details of timing in reference to the nation from David and Solomon on demonstrate/prove/show/evidence that the preserved writings are true. Hey, have a good one y'all.

 

[YoursTrue]

I wasn't there so I don't know.

What I am saying is that the story in the Bible is just about exactly what I'd expect to see if story were interpreted from older writing by individuals who did not understand science or the meaning of the story. The event was the official change in language.

I am hamstrung by only being able to base my models on experiment and fact.



All things are evidence. Reality is binary; either something exists or it does not.

The Bible exists.



The story in Genesis exists but it also exists in other sources dating all the way back to about 1800 BC.

OK. (By the way, Moses wasn't there at the time of Adam and Eve, so he knew something about it from somewhere. There is a Jewish tradition regarding this. It makes sense. Meantime, Moses didn't start writing until God "met him" in the wilderness.) Believe it or not. And yet all the naysayers weren't there either, but insist that the comments of other maysayers are true. To me, it shows such an inconsistency of lifecourse, since so many claim to be in a religion that bases its tenets on the Bible. That's almost like the doctors prescribing placebos, knowing they are not addressing the disease but giving it to patients anyway. ("This may work...")

 

[cladking]

The more I read the Bible, frankly my dear, the more apparent/obvious it becomes to me that it is not a 'made-up' document, but truthful and accurate. And more so (also @Dan From Smithville ) the details of timing in reference to the nation from David and Solomon on demonstrate/prove/show/evidence that the preserved writings are true. Hey, have a good one y'all.

Yes! Exactly. I agree.

At least with the Old Testament I believe the entire thing is literally true. The problem is that it is being misinterpreted. There is no metaphor, no hyperbole, and no abstraction. It was simply translated from a language whose meaning was literal but can not be translated. See I Corinthians 14.
Nothing is made up.

 

[cladking]

OK. (By the way, Moses wasn't there at the time of Adam and Eve, so he knew something about it from somewhere.

Yes. Exactly! Before the speciation event occurred people cared about history and metaphysics. They used the stars as a mnemonic to remember people and their stories. To the Egyptians "Adam" was known as "S3h" and he was the very first homo sapien. His mate was Sopdet. They invoked these individuals in every single sentence that involved the creation of the human race; the birth of "thot".

Modern people are very confused and Darwin is a big part of the reason we are so confused. Language is the biggest part because we believe what we see and that our assumptions are unassailable. Reality is binary and logical and consciousness lies at the heart of life and species.

 

[cladking]

Reality is binary and logical

I suspect sometimes that I understood this at a very young age and it charted the course of my entire life and the giant circular reasoning to get back to where I started. Circularly Reasoning Man. This is the very nature of our species that arose at the "tower of babel".

I believe I just happened to start at correct assumptions and science has become sufficiently advanced to show it.

Reality is impossibly complex and all things, events, and processes are intimately connected on a real time basis just as all experiment and all real evidence is intimately connected and apply simultaneously. It's a great life if you don't weaken.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes. Exactly! Before the speciation event occurred people cared about history and metaphysics. They used the stars as a mnemonic to remember people and their stories. To the Egyptians "Adam" was known as "S3h" and he was the very first homo sapien. His mate was Sopdet. They invoked these individuals in every single sentence that involved the creation of the human race; the birth of "thot".

Modern people are very confused and Darwin is a big part of the reason we are so confused. Language is the biggest part because we believe what we see and that our assumptions are unassailable. Reality is binary and logical and consciousness lies at the heart of life and species.

Well, the printing press wasn't around way back then. For one thing.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes. Exactly! Before the speciation event occurred people cared about history and metaphysics. They used the stars as a mnemonic to remember people and their stories. To the Egyptians "Adam" was known as "S3h" and he was the very first homo sapien. His mate was Sopdet. They invoked these individuals in every single sentence that involved the creation of the human race; the birth of "thot".

Modern people are very confused and Darwin is a big part of the reason we are so confused. Language is the biggest part because we believe what we see and that our assumptions are unassailable. Reality is binary and logical and consciousness lies at the heart of life and species.

I'm not sure where you're getting your information from.

 

[cladking]

I'm not sure where you're getting your information from.

It's rediscovery of ancient science that worked by "Observation > Logic" instead of "Observation > Experiment" like our science. Logic in ancient science was language that was written in the stars. "Change in species" was "known" to be caused not by "survival of the fittest" but by consciousness. It all started with "Adam" and "Eve"...

 

[YoursTrue]

It's rediscovery of ancient science that worked by "Observation > Logic" instead of "Observation > Experiment" like our science. Logic in ancient science was language that was written in the stars. "Change in species" was "known" to be caused not by "survival of the fittest" but by consciousness. It all started with "Adam" and "Eve"...

So where are you getting your information from?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I wasn't there so I don't know.

Really?

What I am saying is that the story in the Bible is just about exactly what I'd expect to see if story were interpreted from older writing by individuals who did not understand science or the meaning of the story. The event was the official change in language.

It is a mythological event used as an allegory to explain the diversity of languages and give moral reasons for that diversity.

Why would you expect anything? Your years as a linguist? Your decades long extensive study of the Bible and other ancient documents. Or just your usual Make it Up and Say Science?

I think the meaning of the story is pretty clear and don't know why it wouldn't have been clear to those writing down the previous oral tales. You don't need to understand science to write the story.

We send rockets to the moon and Mars and infinity and beyond now and...nothing.

Still no reason to consider your claims in any seriousness.

I am hamstrung by only being able to base my models on experiment and fact.

SMH! No! You don't base anything you have told us on experiment or fact. That can't be what is holding you back. Could it be that you don't really understand things like you imagine you do?

All things are evidence.

Not anything in dispute and not something I would disagree with.

Reality is binary;

Again, not an idea in dispute. I suspect why you make statements like this and the previous one, but it isn't to address anything anyone else said.

either something exists or it does not.

Things that don't exist include ancient science, ancient language, talking beavers, Homo omnisciensis, sudden change in all living things, the Tower of Babel speciation event, speciation at bottlenecks, etc., etc., etc.

The Bible exists.

Not anything that I have dispute and not an issue in dispute.

Basically you are avoiding a rational answer to my point which is that there is nothing in the Bible that can be found in pretty much any science book.

I will take your silence as assent and consider that you must agree with that, since you didn't disagree with it.

The story in Genesis exists but it also exists in other sources dating all the way back to about 1800 BC.

So what? Your statement doesn't provide evidence or experiment corroborating and dating the Tower of Babel allegory.

You either have answers or you don't. If you don't, it is OK to say so.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Someday perhaps I'll write out a detailed answer to this. Remember reality is logic manifest that unfolds from initial conditions and life is logic incarnate that unfolds through free will, consciousness.

Someday sure. When do you think that some day will be? You've posted enough for a book now. I'm not sure what is holding you back.

That's like a mantra that you repeat instead of a direct answer with facts and evidence supporting it.

Yes.

So you agree that some animals think and have instincts. I agree too.

But I also said animals do not experience thought.

Your statements are logically inconsistent both externally and internally. How can you agree that they think and that they don't think? It doesn't make any sense.

Their reality is configured differently than ours as are their languages.

Based on what? What languages? Where is this published and established?

If we could ask one what it's thinking it would not understand.

Of course not. Why does this even need to be said? But some of them can learn, i.e. think.

It would not understand any abstraction.

I disagree and you never bothered to present anything to refute that. Just your usual mantras and you ignored it. @It Aint Necessarily So and I have both mentioned the abstract ability expressed by dogs. I'm pretty sure that we would see even greater ability in many non-human primates.

The words to form the question do not exist in any animal language.

Are you sure? Of course they don't. Animal languages haven't even been established to exist. At least not languages similar to ours. Of course, they communicate with each other. Or some animal species do.

They could not learn these words without learning a new language and how to "think".

You've already agreed that they think. Here's more of that external inconsistency I was talking about.

They could tell you what's going on in their minds by various means, and do, but they do not experience "thought".

And here is an internal inconsistency and word play. If they are communicating, they are experiencing thought.

Yes. Animals act on their highly limited knowledge by means of the complexity of their entire "brains".

Yes, thinking.

They see what they know and act accordingly.

Yes, thinking. A triple. Word play. Internal inconsistency and external inconsistency.

Writing from before the "tower of babel" contains no abstraction, taxonomy, or words to express thought.

What writing is this? Where is this published? No conspiracy theories or mantras about peers please. Just straight answers if you will.

It was apparently written by another species.

Another species? Mammal? Reptile? Dinosaur?

What evidence and experiments support this fantastic claim.

Recall that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The language is logical and there is a mathematical relationship between words.

A language that doesn't contain abstract ideas, comparisons or any reference to thought while apparently not actually existing has a mathematical relationship? Amazing! Where can I find the papers on this?

But everything is extrapolation from all theory and observation in the light of empirical evidence. In other words I maintain that all things are logical and in order that all the evidence and experiment fit into a logical pattern a new paradigm emerges that shows life is consciousness, Darwin was wrong, all our assumptions are wrong.

That is an amazing volume of work you are referring to if you had any evidence to back it up. Where is all this published. If it isn't, why isn't it?

Darwin was wrong about what exactly? What assumptions? You keep saying his assumptions were wrong. List them and show us why they were wrong. No chit chat about reading tea leaves or mysticism if you don't mind. Just the facts and a rational explanation of them please.

Recall that I have previously refuted your claims about Darwin's assumption on the stability of populations and genetic uniformity.

We see only what we believe and reason in circles so this is invisible to us.

I don't doubt that some only see what they believe and go even further and try to get others to join them in their circle and believe it too. I think a lot of us though, we require evidence and a rational explanation regarding that evidence and the conclusions drawn from it.

I'll get some popcorn.

Humans are distinct from all life that existed before modern languages (the confusion of the language).

The evidence demonstrates that Homo sapiens, that's us, have existed for 300,000 years. There is no evidence of writing going back further than 5,000 years. What are the distinctions that separate us from other animals? How does this relate to modern languages? What evidence indicates that all modern languages are only a few thousand years old?

We are mammals. We share characters that identify us as mammals. We are primates and share characters that identify us with that group. We are hominids and share characters that identify us with that group. We have complex languages that express abstract ideas. We can predict outcomes. We can examine history. We can contemplate our own existence. This sets us apart, but it doesn't erase our connect to other animals.

 

[YoursTrue]

Really?

It is a mythological event used as an allegory to explain the diversity of languages and give moral reasons for that diversity.

Why would you expect anything? Your years as a linguist? Your decades long extensive study of the Bible and other ancient documents. Or just your usual Make it Up and Say Science?

I think the meaning of the story is pretty clear and don't know why it wouldn't have been clear to those writing down the previous oral tales. You don't need to understand science to write the story.

We send rockets to the moon and Mars and infinity and beyond now and...nothing.

Still no reason to consider your claims in any seriousness.

SMH! No! You don't base anything you have told us on experiment or fact. That can't be what is holding you back. Could it be that you don't really understand things like you imagine you do?

Not anything in dispute and not something I would disagree with.

Again, not an idea in dispute. I suspect why you make statements like this and the previous one, but it isn't to address anything anyone else said.

Things that don't exist include ancient science, ancient language, talking beavers, Homo omnisciensis, sudden change in all living things, the Tower of Babel speciation event, speciation at bottlenecks, etc., etc., etc.

Not anything that I have dispute and not an issue in dispute.

Basically you are avoiding a rational answer to my point which is that there is nothing in the Bible that can be found in pretty much any science book.

I will take your silence as assent and consider that you must agree with that, since you didn't disagree with it.

So what? Your statement doesn't provide evidence or experiment corroborating and dating the Tower of Babel allegory.

You either have answers or you don't. If you don't, it is OK to say so.

Can someone please explain to me what "reality is binary" means?

 

[YoursTrue]

Someday sure. When do you think that some day will be? You've posted enough for a book now. I'm not sure what is holding you back.

That's like a mantra that you repeat instead of a direct answer with facts and evidence supporting it.

So you agree that some animals think and have instincts. I agree too.

Your statements are logically inconsistent both externally and internally. How can you agree that they think and that they don't think? It doesn't make any sense.

Based on what? What languages? Where is this published and established?

Of course not. Why does this even need to be said? But some of them can learn, i.e. think.

I disagree and you never bothered to present anything to refute that. Just your usual mantras and you ignored it. @It Aint Necessarily So and I have both mentioned the abstract ability expressed by dogs. I'm pretty sure that we would see even greater ability in many non-human primates.

Are you sure? Of course they don't. Animal languages haven't even been established to exist. At least not languages similar to ours. Of course, they communicate with each other. Or some animal species do.

You've already agreed that they think. Here's more of that external inconsistency I was talking about.

And here is an internal inconsistency and word play. If they are communicating, they are experiencing thought.

Yes, thinking.

Yes, thinking. A triple. Word play. Internal inconsistency and external inconsistency.

What writing is this? Where is this published? No conspiracy theories or mantras about peers please. Just straight answers if you will.

Another species? Mammal? Reptile? Dinosaur?

What evidence and experiments support this fantastic claim.

Recall that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

A language that doesn't contain abstract ideas, comparisons or any reference to thought while apparently not actually existing has a mathematical relationship? Amazing! Where can I find the papers on this?

That is an amazing volume of work you are referring to if you had any evidence to back it up. Where is all this published. If it isn't, why isn't it?

Darwin was wrong about what exactly? What assumptions? You keep saying his assumptions were wrong. List them and show us why they were wrong. No chit chat about reading tea leaves or mysticism if you don't mind. Just the facts and a rational explanation of them please.

Recall that I have previously refuted your claims about Darwin's assumption on the stability of populations and genetic uniformity.

I don't doubt that some only see what they believe and go even further and try to get others to join them in their circle and believe it too. I think a lot of us though, we require evidence and a rational explanation regarding that evidence and the conclusions drawn from it.

I'll get some popcorn.

The evidence demonstrates that Homo sapiens, that's us, have existed for 300,000 years. There is no evidence of writing going back further than 5,000 years. What are the distinctions that separate us from other animals? How does this relate to modern languages? What evidence indicates that all modern languages are only a few thousand years old?

We are mammals. We share characters that identify us as mammals. We are primates and share characters that identify us with that group. We are hominids and share characters that identify us with that group. We have complex languages that express abstract ideas. We can predict outcomes. We can examine history. We can contemplate our own existence. This sets us apart, but it doesn't erase our connect to other animals.

I'm thinking about starting a new thread entitled, "Is there a God"? And how does one reason there is a God based on -- evidence, I might say. (or ask)
One of the reasons I may start a new thread and look for opinions is that there apparently, from what I've read, are writings about a great flood, Gilgamesh? But that is not the topic I want to ask opinions about. Basically it would be "Do you think there is a God, and on what do you base your thoughts"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm thinking about starting a new thread entitled, "Is there a God"? And how does one reason there is a God based on -- evidence, I might say. (or ask)
One of the reasons I may start a new thread and look for opinions is that there apparently, from what I've read, are writings about a great flood, Gilgamesh? But that is not the topic I want to ask opinions about. Basically it would be "Do you think there is a God, and on what do you base your thoughts"?

I do not think that you will find any reliable evidence for a God. But then I do not think you will find any reliable evidence against a God either. Don't rely on a global flood since that claim is easily refuted, but the fact that there was no global flood does not mean that there was no God either. The two are independent of each other.

 

[gnostic]

How am I supposed to have every answer?

Cladking.

You were the one who brought “seeds from space” up.

I believe the earth first became capable of supporting life at about that time. Before life had a chance to arise on earth it was seeded from space. Life rarely has a chance to arise on its own because space is full of "seeds".

Here, I see you are trying to claiming some different from all the other time where you talk of Evolution. This is the 1st time you talk of life coming to Earth from seeds from space.

But it is rather vague in detail. So I want you to clarify and be more specific as to what you meant by the Earth being "seeded".

 

[cladking]

So you agree that some animals think and have instincts.

All life thinks. Only homo omnisciencis experiences thought.

Based on what? What languages? Where is this published and established?

"All" life communicates. Now you'll come back later and say you saw the caraway seeds on your bread having a conversation.

Communications Consultant | Prairie Dog Communications

Sustainability communications consulting

www.prairiedogcommunications.com

Just because we don't understand then doesn't mean they don't have language. Bees probably have a couple hundred word language. Crow is sufficiently complex they can describe an individual.

These languages are binary, metaphysical, and formatted very differently than any existing human language. To communicate with apes we must teach them English.

What writing is this? Where is this published?

The Pyramid Texts Index

The Pyramid Texts, Samuel A.B. Mercer tr., at sacred-texts.com

www.sacred-texts.com

There is other but nothing of sufficient length to solve scientifically.

Another species? Mammal? Reptile? Dinosaur?

What evidence and experiments support this fantastic claim.

The extraordinary evidence can't be seen by believers. It is always handwaved. Homo sapien history ends with the tower of babel when our history begins.

The evidence demonstrates that Homo sapiens, that's us, have existed for 300,000 years.

No!!! Reading fossil records has the same validity as reading tea leaves. Proto-humans looked like and rot down the exact same way as homo sapiens and homo omnisciencis. The differences are in the brain. 40,000 years ago Adam (S3h) was born with more connections between the wernickes area and the frontal cortex and then 4,000 years ago every individual had to develop an area to create a broccas area. You can't look at a fossil and figure out what the individual was thinking or how he came to think it. I never tried to read tea leaves or fossils.

There is no evidence of writing going back further than 5,000 years. What are the distinctions that separate us from other animals?

This is not strictly true. Proto-writing dates back at least 7500 years and both Sumerian and Egyptian writing were developed by 3200 BC. But this is hardly important. What is important is that Ancient Language can not be translated. It looks like religio-magical gobblety gook to us. Indeed, Egyptian ancient writing is believed to be incantation so it's not supposed to make any sense. The language breaks Zipf's Law and contains no abstractions, no taxonomies, and no words for thinking. It has only several thousand words and most are unknown. It is obviously different than any existing language but linguists never noticed because they believe in linear progress and Evolution.

What evidence indicates that all modern languages are only a few thousand years old?

PIE dates back only to 2000 BC. This was right after the tower of bable destroyed Ancient Language.

 

[cladking]

Here, I see you are trying to claiming some different from all the other time where you talk of Evolution. This is the 1st time you talk of life coming to Earth from seeds from space.

No, it's not the first time. I don't think it's even the first time in this thread. It really doesn't matter though because I've always agreed that species change. I disagree about why they change and the rapidity of the change.

Life on earth changes whether it originated here or was blown in on the cosmic wind. I believe it blew in because of the speed with which species can adapt to new conditions and because species have so much similar DNA and so much DNA with no known purpose. It appears to b far older than the earth.

Just as I can only speculate on what caused a specific change in species I can only speculate on the nature of the seed that brought life to earth.

 

[cladking]

So where are you getting your information from?

It is extrapolation and deduction from my theory. If I am right about life, consciousness, reality, and funiculars then I might be right about the original meaning of I Corinthians 14 or the tower of babel.

 

[cladking]

Can someone please explain to me what "reality is binary" means?

Humans see reality as analog. This is a confusion caused by our language. There is no such thing ibn reality as two identical things so statements like 2 + 2 = 4 are mere abstractions and exercises in logic. They have no meaning in the real world where something exists or it does not. The only two "numbers" are "0" and "1" and, of course "zero" doesn't really exist either because nothing can not exist. But the fact that everything doesn't exist implies a place holder for those which do not; zero.

Reality is not analog. It appears analog to those who think.